supervisor kim,? supervisor tang, aye, supervisor wiener, wiener, aye, supervisor yaoe, yaoe, aye, supervisor avalos? >> aye. >> there are 11 ayes. >> these ordinances are finally passed, resolutions adopted and motions approved. madam clerk, item 12. >> item 12 is a resolution to authorize the municipal transportation agent to enter into an agreement with ips group for the procurement of single space parking meters and support services for an amount not to exceed 54 million dollars and for a term of five years. >> i have an amendment today to this contract agreement that i want to present essentially we've had a number of go-arounds with this resolution, concerned about the expansion of parking meters and concern from residents, in particular, parts of san francisco and considered about

the outreach effort of the mta as well, and so what we have is an amendment that would lower the number of parking meters that would be authorized for new meters na are part of this resolution from 10 thousand to 5 thousand and the meters will be disbursed as follows, it's on the second page of the amendment starting on line 4 describes the new meters go in, whereas the board of suze sores understands it is the intention of the sfmta that the additional 5 thousand single meters be allocated as follows, 1200 for port meter replacement, 2800 to replace damaged meters and 1 thousand to be used as a maintenance float, so there will be no expansion of new meters and if that's going to happen, it will

be another go-around from the mta to describe how they will implement and with a lot of outreach to the public, so i know we have mr. risken here who may be able toed answer questions we might have, but i feel this resolution answers a lot of concerns people have and should be ready to go, thanks. >> is there a second to that motion? second by supervisor mar. do we have discussion on the amendments? okay, let's have some discussion, supervisor mar? >> thank you, president chiu, i wanted to thank supervisor avalos for working with the mta. i know when it first came to the budget committee, there wasn't that much detail in it, so i think the reduction from 10 thousand to 5 thousand of these new meters is important and designating where they're going to go is really important. i think public space though is a rare and valuable commodity in our city and how we allocate

it is important and that discussion came up in the budget department as well, i think the mta has committed through this process to a much stronger engagement in community process whenever they consider parking meters and other parking management tools, so i'm really grateful for mr. ris k*en and the mta for working with our offices as well, when it first dame to the budget committee, i urged the mta to develop a significant base lao*in for outreach for communities in neighborhoods that are impacted and sometimes the meters are the right answer, and other times they are not. as around usf, university of san francisco, we found out sometime last year, the size of the project and the multiple land uses in question required us to look care mri and consider all the options to manage our parking challenges so i'm glad that the number has been reduced significantly and i think while outreach has existed in the past in the mta,

i think this is an example of improved responsiveness and decisiveness and a much clearer process for outreach that they will conduct. it also gives communities and the mta more tools and processes to make the right decisions in each of our neighbor neighborhoods with the decision that saoup sore avalos has made, i'm comfortable to support this resolution as well. >> supervisor farrell? >> thank, president chiu, colleagues, i think when this came to budget and finance committee a few weeks ago, i think it was the first time we had read through it and had raised a number of concerns with ms. boez during the time and i want to thank director ris k*en for meeting on this issue and i think the amendments na are proposed today by supervisor avalos from my perspective work. my main issue was the expansion of parking meters, i've talked a lot about that in the neighborhoods and i think what we see today is that these are

truly replacement meters and meters to maintain the maintenance. i think replacing the new meters with the old ones is a great thing, i love paying with a credit card -- i don't like paying at all, if i have to, i would rather pay with a credit card than through the old meters, so i think it's a step in the right direction and you know, if we do encounter time when we talk about expanding parking meters, that would be a separate conversation but as for today in this parking contract, i'm happy to support it as is. >> supervisor cohen? >> thank you very much, mr. president. so, when this contract first came to us, i had two key concerns. the first was simple, the number of meters that the sfmta was proposing. and based on the breakdown that was shown to us, i dnl believe the mta had sufficient justification for an option for 10 thousand meters and i think that we all agree based on supporting the amendment that

we want to upgrade our current meters so that we can accept credit card transactions but we probably don't need 10 thousand of them. i also understand that when additional meters in the reserve for the maintenance and for observe contingency purposes, by *f but i just want to go on record saying i can't support a large contingency plan to our neighborhood and i spent two years engaged with a dialogue with mta about the potential of parking meter expansion. i would like to ask director ris k*en a question, mr. president, if i may. thank you, director ris k*en, i wanted to know if we were to reduce the contract option from 10 thousand to 5 thousand meters, these would be used there replacement of existing

port meters, a maintenance contingency and an allocation for replacement for the damaged meters, is that correct? >> yes, through the president, supervisor cohen, members of the board, ed ris k*en, director of transportation, first let me say i realize that talking about parking meters, particularly new parking meters can be a charged issue and i know it can be a difficult issue for you in your position, so i appreciate all the feedback that we've gotten through this process, i've had discussions directly with most of you. your feedback has been helpful and helping us get to what i think is a better proposal before you. the context of what we brought you originally is that this is the replacement of this contract would provide for the replacement of all 25 thousand single space parking meters in san francisco and that's an asset base that we not only

need to replace but that we need to maintain over time. this is a 7 year contract, so it was our intent to build in the flexibility that we would need to manage an asset base of that size as well as to manage parking in the city as is our mandate under the charter based on the changing needs of the city. i think we heard clearly from you concerns about the size of the option and it is an option, and also the process by which we make new parking meter decisions, so it was based on that, that the sfm's that we developed and enhanced that reached process that was informed by your office that is we formally had the sfmta board of directors adopt last week and also reduce the option that -- the option of 10 thousand meters was really a high end projection over the next 7

years of what we thought we would need for the port meters, for maintenance, for repair and replacement, for kind of routine additions as we've done over the years and this was looking back on historical data and then a pretty sizable acknowledged sizable contingency. bringing this number down to 5 thousand will really leave us room primarily only for maintenance, repair and replacement and a reserve for the port and again, these are options to be exercised. if we were to get as we sometimes do very small scale requests for a couple of meters for a commercial establishment, i think we would have room within that 5 thousand going pursuant to the new process that we have outlined and had adopted by the board of directors to accommodate some very small new meter requests,

but we certainly wouldn't be able to do anything on the scale of what we originally had proposed, for example, for the northeast mission proposal that we had since significantly changed, so the 5 thousand option would not give us the ability to do anything of that scale or even really a median scale, you know, very, very small meter insulation request that we would work through if they were agreeable by the community and your offices, we would still have room to do some of those within an option of 5 thousand. >> okay, so it sounds like i just wanted to summarize what you just said, so beautifully and eloquently, but the 5 thousand meters would be used for replacement of existing port meters, they'd serve as a maintenance contingency and also the allocation of the [inaudible] meters, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> okay. one more question.

now, should the mta get a request from meters which had the request of 415 meters, where or how would this request be filled? >> we wouldn't be able to accommodate a request of that size, so we would need another procurement vehicle such as modifying this contract that would require i believe any contract that requires and receives approval by the board of supervisors, also the modification would require approval of the board of supervisors, so a possibility would be we would come back, say we'd have the specific request, here's the process and we'd seek your authorization to modify the contract. >> what's the other possibility? that's one possibility. i'm under the impression that there's only one pathway. >> i don't think there would be another way to do that, i think the core -- the most important thing we need to do is ensure we could maintain the asset base that we have and the 5 thousand would really bring us down to the level of our being

able to do that so we would not be able to within this contract if approved this way accommodate a 400 parking meter expansion. >> alright, thank you very much, i appreciate that. so, i'm definitely supportive of the amendment and supportive of supporting replacement of our existing meters and then allowing for a contingency plan -- mr. president, thank you. that's it. >> supervisor breed? >> thank you. mr. ris k*en, can i ask a question, please. so, when we met, we discussed locations where meters were placed and may not necessarily be locations where meters are necessary. what happens in that case? are those meters put into reserve or, i mean, are you able to use those meters and allocate those meters in new

locations that traditionally don't hold meters? >> so, it's possible if we had new meters that were in good condition that we were removing for whatever purpose that we would have those then available for basically the purposes that are within the option that we've outlined in this contract. it's not something that happens all that frequently and in turp terms of existing meters, we wouldn't repurpose those anywhere because they're of the old technology that we're trying to phase out. we have begun an evaluation of the specific areas that you and i talked about, specifically golden gate and turk and we're kind of constantly as a matter of course evaluating parking management controls that we have, whether it's time limits, meters, colored curbs continuously and we do make

changes. i don't think we've done any massive meter removals. >> so, it won't be sufficient enough in order to say for example, if you were removing any meters, it wouldn't add o the number significantly enough to be utilized for a new meter location? >> i can't imagine a scenario where we'd be removing a significant number of newly installed parking meters after this 25 thousand is upgraded. >> okay. and with the port, i just have some personal experience, so i have a few issues. i know we in san francisco have just gotten used to the idea of sunday meters which has been a bit challenging, and i know that for i guess a few years now, the port meters have -- which i wasn't aware of, i'm sorry, i don't know everything, i wasn't aware that the port meters were extended to the later evening hour and is

locations in the port where meters are located, it's fairly dark, and i was just wondering, are there any plans, yes, clearly, they are going to be paying mta for these meters, but are there any plans that you're aware of that the port will provide appropriate lighting and signage to make it clear that in the evening hours when it is dark that meters are still required to be paid for the average person who may not be aware that that's the case. >> we've been working closely with the port of san francisco to try to better coordinate parking management generally and they do essentially contract the services up, they make the policy decisions and they've been 7 days a week, i think 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. for many, many years, so we're more for them just an implementing agency, but as we get specific feedback about issues of signage or anything else, we do communicate and work with the

port and we'd be happy to work with your office or the offices of the supervisors adjacent to the port for any ways that we can enhance the signage and the legibility, we'd much rather have people paying through the meter than through citations. >> okay. i'm sure everybody here who ran into an -- anyone else? nobody at the port? okay, just me? just me. okay. so, i'm happy to support this resolution because it doesn't extend locations for meters and that was my biggest concern. i didn't want us to just begin placing meters all over the place, i'll wake up one morning and all of a sudden, two, three, four blocks in my neighborhood have meters and that's what most of my neighbors were concerned about and many of the e-mails that i

received from constituents were concerned about expansions and not having the ability to participate in those expansions so i'm happy to see this has been amended and has made it clear that we're not talking about an extension, we're talking specifically about replacement repairs and it's outlined clearly in the resolution, so i really appreciate that. i'd like to mention that on a side note that money that these meters generate, whether it's a ticket, whether it's a payment or what have you help to pay for issues around transportation and we definitely need to make sure that strategically, we're continuously placing meters in the best locations possible, but also the community outreach process is open and such that the folks that are mostly impacted by a change from non-meters to meters are a part

of the process, and we don't necessarily go into the neighborhood with the plan to already place meters there, obtain the community and place the meter there anyway, so i want to make sure in moving forward that we are just being open-minded and understanding especially because i think we're kind of venturing out past the territory of commercial areas in places where meters were meant to be into residential areas where they should never be and i want to make sure we're not heading down that road and i appreciate the work that you've done, mr. ris k*in to not only move this forward, to work with supervisor avalos to make the necessary changes to work this and to not expand the program, so thank you. >> supervisor wiener? >> thank you, mr. president. so, i'm glad this got resolved.

i think, you know, there's been no concern about the placement of meters, especially in areas that would arguably be residential areas and i know it's caused concern with folks who are impacted by that, understanding that there are times when meters do make sense and in my district, there was one particular merchant's association that asked for a meter expansion because they thought there was a portion of their commercial district that was not covered appropriately by meters and meters do turn over in vehicle parking and mta rejected that request, so it's a more nuance issue than i think people sometimes perceive, but this discussion is focused so much on the possibility and the concern about expansion but i think what's gotten lost in the

shuffle is how positive this contract is in terms of what it's going to deliver to the city. my question is really -- i don't know, this took a long time to get here and i'm glad that we're here and we're going to actually have good meters throughout the city because most of the city now still has coin operated meters and it's really -- it makes it harder for people to pay. i know that when you transition to the credit card meters and the remote reloading meters, you end up increasing meter revenue and decrease ticket revenue and that's a positive thing. people can decide that they're going to park and pay and they know what they're going the pay and they don't have to have sort of the anger that people -- and the surprise that people get when they get hit with the 75 or 90 dollar ticket, so i think this is long overdue, i'm

glad that all of the meters, the coin meters as well as the original generation of credit card meters which have some issues are all going to be replaced with new technology. it's going the make it easier for people to park at meters, they're going to be able to quickly pay, they're not going to have to remember to carry quarters with them, they're going to be able to remotely reload the meters and this is going the improve the experience for people throughout the city and for people coming into the city. so, i guess a question, mr. ris k*en is when can we expect this roll-out to be complete, and i asked that partly in the context when i came into office in january, 2011, the mta offered me one neighborhood, said you can pick one neighborhood to have credit card meters, we went with noly valley and i was told within a year or so, the rest of the district would be teetered with the new meters and that hasn't

happened, if you could talk about the timing. >> yeah, sure, thank you. so, this has been a long process, it took us a long time to develop the request for a proposal because we wanted to make sure that all of the feedback we had gotten, particularly from some of our newer meters was incorporated and we're really pushing the parking meter industry, i think we're at the leader edge here in san francisco in term of making the technology work, particularly for the users. i believe the rfp was issued in january, it looks if we secure board approvalfinger we'll be basically issuing a notice to proceed probably next month, so december, the meter installation would start early in 2014 and it's probably about a 12 month process, so it would be by the end of calendar year 2014 that all 25 thousand meters should be replaced. we do have a rough idea of how

we would go about sequencing that and i don't have it with me. i would be happy to share that with the board. we would be starting with the older coin only meters first, which are generally further out and then working our way in. >> thank you. >> supervisor yee? >> thank you, president chiu. i just wanted to thank supervisor avalos for bringing these amendments forward and also for the budget committee working through this with director ris k*en. the amendments makes it -- i'll be supporting the amendments, it makes it clear what these meters are for and like most of my colleagues, if not all, i'm concerned -- i would have been concerned if it were 10 thousand meters and not knowing where these meters would be placed, like some of my colleagues here, i don't want

to be surprised one morning and wake up and there's like about a mile of meters in my district, and i also appreciate the flexibility of director ris k*en and all this and working with the board here. i also like supervisor wiener appreciate that we're going to move forward with this by using some of the modern technologies available to make it easier for the users to pay for their meters, so thank you very much. >> supervisor campos? >> thank you, mr. president. i had a quick question, but before i ask that question, i want to thank director ris k*en and his staff and my colleagues and in particular, supervisor avalos and his staff for the very i think balanced approach that they have taken. i think the changes make this

item a better item, but i do have a question through the chair to our city attorney. in terms of the language around the additional 5 thousand single spaced meters, i'm wondering if the attorney can talk about how finding that language actually is on the mta. >> sure. deputy city attorney john gibner. the board is approving a contract that authorizes the mta to purchase the 5 thousand additional meters, so in that sense, that piece is binding mta may purchase 5 thousand for optional meters. supervisor avalos' amendment includes an additional whereas clause that talks about the allocation of those meters, that is not binding on the mta, the mta has exclusive authority to determine how to allocate

the meters, but the resolution reflects the board's understanding of the mta's intent at this time to allocate the meters in the way set forth in the resolution. er >> thank you. if i may then through the chair, if i can ask director ris k*en, and again, i support this item, i think the amendments that have been made make sense but given that the language that is i think the reason why so many of you are supporting this is not binding on the mta, i want to make sure i have a clear understanding that the mta as far as you know, as far as you're concerned, it's committed to making sure that you follow the intent, the very expressed sbept that's imbedded in the resolution. inger >> yes, thank you for the question, and absolutely. i guess a couple of control points here, first of all, as i said with not to exceed amount

of 5 thousand, that's what we believe we will need rally basically just to maintain the asset base that we have to deal with the routine maintenance needs, the retune replacement needs, the meters sometimes get vandalized, get hit by trucks, the 5 thousand really just enable us to do that plus keep a reserve for the port for their replacement. the second point of control which is to some extent moved at this point is the new smta board adopted policy with regard to outreach, so to the comments of i don't want to wake up and find a whole bufrnl of parking meters in my district or my neighborhoods which nobody wants to be surprised by new parking meters, we have a process that would inhibit that from happening but ultimately as i said in answer to a previous question, with the limit of 5 thousand, we would not have the

capacity within this contract to do anything other than very small kind of spot requests that go through that process that the sfmta board has adopted, so the spirit, i believe, of that whereas clause, the reality of what we need to maintain the meters that we have today, i feel very comfortable in assuring you that the sfmta will not be pursuing large meter expansions without having to come back for additional authority. >> okay, thank you very much, mr. ris k*en, i praoeshtd that. er frnts supervisor kim? >> thank you, i wanted to follow up on that question to our city attorney, so is there anything -- you know, i hear director ris k*en's commitment. does this whereas clause bind sfmta to this allocation? i just wanted to clarify that question again?

>> deputy city attorney, john gibner, no, it doesn't bind the sfmta to the allocation. the board through this contract approval cannot bind the mta's decision about where to place the meters but the whereas clause reflects the director's statements about the mta's expectations about how these meters will be used. >> okay. that's not very reassuring. i do have a couple of questions for the director though. so, i just wanted to clarify again, 25 thousand meters is the number of meters we currently have in the city today? >> yeah, i don't know the exact number, it's roughly 25 thousand and that's the base contract. >> and when you said to supervisor cohen that this 5 thousand allotment would allow us to make -- to address small meters requests, when you say small meters requests, how many are you talking? >> well, i think the way we

laid out in our outreach process, we had three different levels, 1 to 50, 51 to 100 and more than 100, we wouldn't be able to do -- we would be able to do very few of the small and we couldn't do probably any even as much as 50 meters if we only have a 5 thousand meter option, so we're really talking about very small, you know, 2 or 3, we have retailers where a situation where maybe what had been a red zone is no longer a red zone in a metered area and there would be a desire by that block to backfill that space in a commercial area with a parking meter, that's something we would still go through this enhanced process, that's something we would be able to accommodate, but i don't see that within this level of optional meter availability within this contract that we would be able to